HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GTAB_04.08.2016Minutes of the Meeting of the
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the
Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas
April 08, 2016
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). If you require assistance in participation at a public meeting due to a disability, as
defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be
provided upon request. Please contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled
meeting date, at (512)930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 81h Street for additional information: TTY
users/ route through Relay Texas at 711.
Board Members: John Pettitt — Chair, John Hesser — Vice Chair, Ron Bindas — Secretary, Peter
Behrman, Donna Courtney
Board Members Absent: Doug Noble, Troy Hellman, Scott Rankin, Steve Johnston
Staff Present: Jim Briggs, Mike Babin, Jana Kern, Ed Polasek, Bill Dryden, Russ Volk, Nat
Waggoner, Trina Bickford, Tristan Whitmire
Others Present: John Milford, Carl Norris, Dennis Hegebarth, Terry Reed — ACC, Tom
Crawford — GTEC, Ken Mabe — Tx Aviation Partners/GTU jet, Trae Sutton — KPA Engineering,
Colin McGahey — Poznecki Camarillo, Inc.
Regular Session
A. Call to Order: Mr. John Pettitt called the Regular GTAB Board Meeting to order on Friday,
April 8,216 at 10:00 AM.
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session
to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member, The City
Manager, Assistant City Manager, General Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or
legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government
Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
B. Introduction of Visitors
C. Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT Updates: First update concerns the Lone Star Rail. At the last
GTAB meeting it was mentioned that the CAMPO Board has directed staff along with
TxDOT and the Alamo Area Council of Government to go back and review the funding
scenarios for Lone Star Rail and if Union Pacific really has pulled out and if the no build
scenario is chosen then all of the CAMPO dollars would have been spent on
environmental process and all of the San Antonio Council Government money would go
back to San Antonio. There appears to be an inequity in funding of the initial
environmental study if the no build scenario is chosen because of the Union Pacific
position. The Board has called a special meeting, which will be held on Friday April 15,
2016, to discuss their ongoing position. By early June we should know where CAMPO
stands on the funding, and we will know which direction Lone Star is going.
Staff has the opportunity to really be involved the State Legislative process, from the
TML prospective. Our Transportation Analyst — Nat Waggoner has been asked to serve
on the TML Committee for Transportation Legislation Review.
D. Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines — Bill Dryden, P. E.,
Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Edward
G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
E. Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and Time Lines. — Russ Volk,
Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director.
Mr. Milford spoke on this item. His presentation is at the end of these minutes
Legislative Regular Agenda
The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following
items:
F.Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular
GTAB Board meeting held on March 11, 2016 — Jana Kern
Motion by Courtney second by Behrman to approve the minutes as presented.
Approved 5-0-4 (Hellmann, Rankin, Johnston & Noble absent)
G. Consideration and possible recommendation to award a bid to Cutler Repaving of
Lawrence, KS in the amount of $872,512.00 for pavement maintenance (hot in place
recycling) —Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Mark
Miller, Transportation Services Manager.
Polasek explained to the Board what this contract would entail. Motion by Courtney
second by Bindas to award the contract to Cutler Repaving in the amount of
$872,512.00. Approved 5-0-4 (Hellmann, Rankin, Johnston & Noble absent)
H. Review and possible recommendation of approval of Task Order SBE 16-002 for
Citywide Sidewalk and Accessibility Improvements to Steger Bizzell of Georgetown,
Texas in the amount of $96,672. - Edward G. Polasek, AICP,
Transportation Director and Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst
Waggoner gave an overview of the Task Order to the Board. Motion by Bindas
second by Hesser to approve Task Order SBE 16-002 in the amount of $96,672.00.
Approved 5-0-4 (Hellmann, Rankin, Johnston & Noble absent)
I. Consideration and possible adoption of staff recommendation for the appointment
Troy Hellman to the Williams Drive Steering Committee. - Nat Waggoner,
Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Director
Polasek explained that this is NOT a Steering Committee but an Ad Hoc working
group. The Board may chose anyone from the Board but Mr. Hellmann was chosen
because he is a Real Estate Agent and works in this area. There will also be a
representative from Planning & Zoning Commission. There will be about five (5)
meetings in a nine (9) month period.
Motion by Hesser second by Bindas to appoint Troy Hellmann to the Williams Drive
Ad Hawk Working Group as the GTAB representative. Approved 5-0-4 (Hellmann,
Rankin, Johnston & Noble absent)
Adjournment
Motion by Hesser second by Courtney to adjourn meeting. Approved 5-0-4 (Hellmann,
Rankin, Johnston & Noble absent) Meeting ended at 11:15 1M
Approved:
on Pettitt - Chair
Ems -
Jana R. Kern — GTAB Board Liaison
das— Secretary
&TAB STATEMENT
APRIL 08, 2016
AGENDA ITEM "Ell
AIRPORT PROJECT PROGRE55 REPORT AND TIME LINES
Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the &TAB board, city staff and ladies and
gentlemen. My name is John Milford I am a member of the Airport Concerned Citizens
This is the 54th presentation by ACC members to the city council and/or the &TAB sinc
January 14, 2014. These actions are in pursuit of the public participation rights of our
citizens regarding use of our federal tax funds for the Georgetown Municipal Airport
(GTU). as provided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). I
In our March meeting statement we welcomed the four new members of this board and
stressed ii of this board as the information gateway to the general public on
transportation and airport issues. This board submits their recommendations to City
Council for consideration and approval. We stressed that those recommendations should
not be limited to single undisputed staff points of view.
We are conf ident that the new members have been briefed on city's opon that the
ACC's goal to close the airport. Of, course that assertion is not true. The only group
that ever advocated that proposal was the now dismantled Airport Advisory Board, which
it outlined in it's 2002 "Airport Closure Project". That report was premised on an abrurt
closure of the airport. Which would have resulted r legal conflicts with
federal grant requirements. Only after closure would any attempts be made to locate an
alternative site at it costs to the taxpayers and the community. That report did not
consider a smooth transon of one site to another such as was done in the Mueller to
Bergstrom transfer of airport operations. The real estate value of existing airport
property was not considered to pay all costs of a transfer of airport operations to a new
location. No consideration was given that the a transfer of airport operations to a new
site, could f ulf ill TxDOT's duty to establish a state Central Texas airport. The bill
authorizing Tx[)ot to establish such an airport is HB 2522. It was passed by the 77 th
Legislature and remains in force today.
Ignoring the absurdity of the "Airport Closure Project" report, the city adopted it and it
conclusion, that no relocation of i was possible under any condons. City
leaders went further and made this nonsense study a part of the city's master plan wher
it exists to this day. That absurd report retains such respect, by a city that prides itsel
onquality, that no professional feasibility study for a superior, rural, zoned and protectel's
site for airport operations transfer has been considered by this board or by the City
Council. This failure to act may result in a dreadful and dangerous consequence for our
city as the airport continues to expand. I
The ACC has repeatedly requested this board to conduct open workshops for public input
and discussions on airport issues. All these requests have been ignored. Last month we
requested revised monthly financial reports that would show the city's total financial
obligation for federal grants received, as debt for repayment. This includes the city's
obligation for the federal funded airport control tower. We see no such revisions to
those financial reports this month. Perhaps city staff can enlighten us with their
presentations. New board members should ask for and be provided with updated versions
of the TxDOT AVN document, Airport Project History. That document describes the
local, state and federal costs of completed GTU grants and state f uncled routine annual
maintenance program (RAMP) grants.
Another important issue for workshop discussions is compliance with NEPA. All board
members need a f irm understanding of this f ederal law and that non-compliance by the
city, TxDOT and FAA is a root cause of ACC activity. In simplified terms, NEPA requires
that prior to any federal funding action the federal agency involved must determine the
extent of adverse impacts that could result from its implementation. The determination is
made by preparation of an Environmental Impact 5tatement (EI5), unless an
Environmental Assessment (EA) is prepared that shows an EIS is not required. If the
agency involved can demonstrate the proposed action f its wn an agency category, that
has been shown over time not to produce adverse impacts, it can categorically exclude the
action for NEPA reviews.
Over r 37 years the city, TxDOT and FAA have relied on categorical exclusions on
each individual grant in a systematic fashion that has transformed the once socially
acceptable GTU to a public health and safety hazard while ignoring signcant public
opposition and controversy.
City staff presentation today regarding comments on the 25 -element, 1514&RGTN, grant
exempes this pattern. Today, the Fuel Farm is presented as if it were a separate
project rather than "only one" of the 25 -elements of that grant. This "segmenting" of the
Fuel Farm element out of the grant f or an EA last yearieu of preparation of an EA for
the entire 25 -element, 1514&1RGTN grant is central to our appeal to higher federal
authores. The fact that Txl)OTAVN prepared a categorical exclusion for the entire
1514&RGTN grant, in lieu of preparation of an EIS, is unjust and is being appealed. A full
workshop discussion on compliance with NEPA and other issues should i,
I welcome any comments or questions.